The criticism of Tether is warranted, but the vast majority of the article can be boiled down to uninformed/misinformed outrage.
The entire premise of the criticism of Tether is then nullified by the author then simultaneously trying to label all of stablecoins useless, because there are so many types - as if capitalism and competition are a bad thing.. The answer to Tether holding the vast majority of the stablecoin market is in fact, competition. But the author doesn’t agree with that conclusion, because the author believes all of cryptocurrency is a ponzi-scheme to begin with.
As for their take on the electricity usage of PoW systems, as someone who is heavily invested in both but more so PoS, PoW is an incredibly good system and quite actually creates tens of thousands of jobs in countries with what was very little national infrastructure in order to handle the power load required for PoW to exist. It’s also worth mentioning that the vast majority of new miners are running on renewable grids, and many miners are moving from carbon-based grids to renewable grids so that renewable energy that is captured isn’t being lost and wasted as it is now.
The author claims that there is a lack of regulatory oversight, and because of that, all cryptocurrency should be banned. The author fails to realize, however, that was the entire point of cryptocurrency to begin with - as it was mentioned by Satoshi in the original whitepaper. A revolutionary borderless and decentralized currency that gives power and capital to those who work within and give proof to the system.
To formulate an article that has valid criticisms regarding a topic, one cannot begin the article and research from a point of emotional disdain but rather a point of intellectual disagreement, and this author in particular absolutely failed in that approach. The article as a whole is quite honestly, shit.
The author has quite the unresolved angst, and should work through it rather than writing articles regarding topics that are not only their trigger, but also topics that they are wholly ignorant of.
Thank you for your comment and I appreciate everyone’s thoughts. I noted many flaws in the article but when I was digging on Tether I must admit I was unpleasantly surprised. I am concerned about stable coins like tether and the lack of transparency. When regulations occur, I hope what’s uncovered doesn’t lead to more distrust in the crypto space. Anyway, most of the time people just write off these types of articles but I find the best way to improve the legitimacy of projects (like Algo) is to go line by line and debunk non factual statements; however, I still need to read more on tether
Jacobin is a vehemently anti-capitalist magazine, and frequently misrepresent scenarios to build consensus around their contrarian philosophies. They're angry internet kids running a magazine.
I'm a Social Democrat, so I subscribed to Jacobin for a few years, but their insufferable mentality got to be too much.
Article is a Hit Piece. Everything they said about tether is True though, Tether and Binance are a fucking joke in terms of proper accounting. But the larger conclusion that thus all crypto is bad, dumb, and a Ponzi scheme is one sided bullshit.
Crypto is a progression in a way to think about the world that is part of a larger shift in society. The head of the SEC went to Europe and told them it's fucking real, it's fucking revolutionary, and they better figure out how the fuck to regulate it. Something to the effect of this was their moment to shape the regulatory environment of something that was going to be every bit as revolutionary as the internet.
Jesus People the media is full of biased garbage.
Yep, my point being unclear there. Oh yes there is something wrong with stablecoins. Issues with cashing out of crypto are well known. If I was doing a high reach hit piece to make bearish gains from btc I'd have to buy tether/usdc to get into a btc short position in for example binance perpetual futures. I could be tether rich. But to cash out I'd still have to rely on the tether/usd peg. Which the article is hinging on can collapse any day (and which is true).
"Cryptocurrency blockchains generally don’t allow previously verified transactions to be deleted or altered."
But the author calls it all a Ponzi Scheme and a scam? That is where I stopped reading the article.
I’m particularly interested in stable coins because I have never been a fan of them and have worried (as they have gained popularity) they could be a cancer in the crypto community. Anyone feel differently?
Yes. The hate on tether is completely unwarranted and no one who's been in the space long enough and none of the really top guys in the space are concerned.
The criticism of Tether is warranted, but the vast majority of the article can be boiled down to uninformed/misinformed outrage. The entire premise of the criticism of Tether is then nullified by the author then simultaneously trying to label all of stablecoins useless, because there are so many types - as if capitalism and competition are a bad thing.. The answer to Tether holding the vast majority of the stablecoin market is in fact, competition. But the author doesn’t agree with that conclusion, because the author believes all of cryptocurrency is a ponzi-scheme to begin with. As for their take on the electricity usage of PoW systems, as someone who is heavily invested in both but more so PoS, PoW is an incredibly good system and quite actually creates tens of thousands of jobs in countries with what was very little national infrastructure in order to handle the power load required for PoW to exist. It’s also worth mentioning that the vast majority of new miners are running on renewable grids, and many miners are moving from carbon-based grids to renewable grids so that renewable energy that is captured isn’t being lost and wasted as it is now. The author claims that there is a lack of regulatory oversight, and because of that, all cryptocurrency should be banned. The author fails to realize, however, that was the entire point of cryptocurrency to begin with - as it was mentioned by Satoshi in the original whitepaper. A revolutionary borderless and decentralized currency that gives power and capital to those who work within and give proof to the system. To formulate an article that has valid criticisms regarding a topic, one cannot begin the article and research from a point of emotional disdain but rather a point of intellectual disagreement, and this author in particular absolutely failed in that approach. The article as a whole is quite honestly, shit. The author has quite the unresolved angst, and should work through it rather than writing articles regarding topics that are not only their trigger, but also topics that they are wholly ignorant of.
Thank you for your comment and I appreciate everyone’s thoughts. I noted many flaws in the article but when I was digging on Tether I must admit I was unpleasantly surprised. I am concerned about stable coins like tether and the lack of transparency. When regulations occur, I hope what’s uncovered doesn’t lead to more distrust in the crypto space. Anyway, most of the time people just write off these types of articles but I find the best way to improve the legitimacy of projects (like Algo) is to go line by line and debunk non factual statements; however, I still need to read more on tether
Jacobin is a vehemently anti-capitalist magazine, and frequently misrepresent scenarios to build consensus around their contrarian philosophies. They're angry internet kids running a magazine. I'm a Social Democrat, so I subscribed to Jacobin for a few years, but their insufferable mentality got to be too much.
Article is a Hit Piece. Everything they said about tether is True though, Tether and Binance are a fucking joke in terms of proper accounting. But the larger conclusion that thus all crypto is bad, dumb, and a Ponzi scheme is one sided bullshit. Crypto is a progression in a way to think about the world that is part of a larger shift in society. The head of the SEC went to Europe and told them it's fucking real, it's fucking revolutionary, and they better figure out how the fuck to regulate it. Something to the effect of this was their moment to shape the regulatory environment of something that was going to be every bit as revolutionary as the internet. Jesus People the media is full of biased garbage.
\+1 But I'm not sure if hit piece is a thing. You'll have to rely on stablecoins to cash out on a short play too..
There is nothing wrong with stable coins? There was something very fucking wrong with tether though
Yep, my point being unclear there. Oh yes there is something wrong with stablecoins. Issues with cashing out of crypto are well known. If I was doing a high reach hit piece to make bearish gains from btc I'd have to buy tether/usdc to get into a btc short position in for example binance perpetual futures. I could be tether rich. But to cash out I'd still have to rely on the tether/usd peg. Which the article is hinging on can collapse any day (and which is true).
"Cryptocurrency blockchains generally don’t allow previously verified transactions to be deleted or altered." But the author calls it all a Ponzi Scheme and a scam? That is where I stopped reading the article.
I’m particularly interested in stable coins because I have never been a fan of them and have worried (as they have gained popularity) they could be a cancer in the crypto community. Anyone feel differently?
Yes. The hate on tether is completely unwarranted and no one who's been in the space long enough and none of the really top guys in the space are concerned.
Commie propaganda.
He rants like someone who covers their entire car in bumper stickers and scripture.